It's not ethical because of the way they trained it. Full stop. Now, my two cents. The real question here, I think, is this: *what* is writing? It's not just a story. And it's only how that story you had in mind comes out on the page, and there's a whole bunch of "things" that happen in the process - those things already dismiss what an AI can produce. It is *where* the story came from. Fiction is human beings talking about human beings, even if it's disguised in the most subtle ways. What life experience does an AI have?
Exactly! If you don't enjoy it don't write... I would add something to this though... I wouldn't feed my book to chat gpt though... If you do use it, use an app that uses the API (application programming interface). They have it in their terms of service that they train the AI on chat conversations, by default unless you opt out, but not from the API side. It's the same AI, but you have to specifically opt in to allow them the train it on your API calls.
Thank you!! Yeah I feel like I've used it before as kind of a thesaurus. It's useful for many things, but I don't think writing a book is one of them. :p
All my books were written with AI, and I think it's a good thing. AI saved me lots of time and money in editing, and helped me correct so many mistakes I had... 😅
I agree with it's a compliment. It's a tool to assist, not replace. I've utilized Copilot to help research information, and learn about tools for writing. Ultimately, it's my ideas and hopefully I gst to the actual writing part beyond getting the ideas and snippets down and organizing them lol. Ai may or may not help thst aspect, or as you say, double check me. I actually asked it how to document and reference the usage in the beginning too lol. It has sparked ideas for names and titles, from prompts I write of course. So much like a patent disclosure, there's a level where someone is included as an inventor vs not. I'll be including some form of acknowledgement to copilot due to the massive amount of sources for information it spits out to me. I'm still doing the writing and idwa generation. It may help spark additional ideas.
As a hiring manager, I am paying for someone's personality and style. So, it would be unethical for them to use AI and turn it in to me. Not to mention that I've already told them that I would fire them if I find out anything they submitted was AI-generated. As an author, I'll never use generative AI to write a single line of text. Mostly because I am on the side of learning how to write better and growing as an author. I would rather put my own soul into a project. I use Autocrit to find redundant and repeat words...because I have issues. lol
My friend introduced me to Autocrit and I think it's SO cool! I learned I describe everything as "small" or "heavy." lol And yeah, I 100% hear you on AI. And I think people like us -- who've been writing for a long time and love it -- the "temptation" isn't even there. I was never like, "Oh man! AI is going to take such a load off my shoulders!" I WANT to do the work.
@@bymegangrant Right? I suppose the benefit of being writers for over a decade just makes it second nature to us. The only thing that impresses me about AI is being able to calculate what videos perform the best on my channel and toss out ideas that might work. Other than that, I'm happiest at my keyboard. :)
Worse if a company buy your work they can't copyright it. Happend with the 1st primate selfie. - If the author isn't human, there is no copyright. That means company A can buy it and company B can or ANYONE else can use it as well. This isn't speculation. It's already gone through the courts, even the Supreme Court. Might vary by country but it's new tech, and there is already precedent: caveat emptor
@@lurkhive3352 How does the copyright office rightly know, without relying on the honor system? This could ultimately make it impossible to copyright anything.
Let me play the devil’s advocate here…I have read about an algorithm program that read all the music created by a certain composer, then it was instructed to create original music in the same style of the composer. Afterwards, the music was played at a live concert for an audience without revealing who (what) wrote the music. At first, those who heard the music simply raved about it, but once they were told it was written by a computer, they then claimed it didn’t sound human at all. So, what’s going on here? Remember, those who heard this music before being told it was written by a computer thought it was incredibly unique and very moving, but once they found out it was actually written by a computer, they claimed that it sounded mechanical! Could human bias be involved in people’s perceptions of what constitutes art? Just for the record, I very much believe that human creativity is one of the things that makes us uniquely human, but this anecdote certainly does raise some really interesting and even important questions about art and human creativity.
That IS very interesting! I believe human bias plays a role in literally everything, so yes, I'd say it's probably involved here. I'm trying to think of something comparable that I can relate to...I've seen video that I didn't immediately know was AI-generated. It just seemed normal. It wasn't bad, and it also didn't blow me away. When I learned it was AI, I was mostly surprised. Did it change my perception of the quality? I'm not sure... but if given the option, I would take something created by a human any day! Very cool story, though. I need to think about this more.
There is an old saying, if you're not cheating, you're not trying. I think if you're not using it, you're not trying. But it's how you use it. I agree to Say hey AI give me a story about a talented writer from Vegas who saves dogs and you take what it generates as your own, that's completely unethical. But if the story is yours and you find yourself needing a different word for thrust , that's fine. One thing I like to do with AI is ask it to take me to a place. For example my story goes to Spain in the fourth book. I can't pick up and go to Spain. So I'll use it to say describe this city in Spain and tell me about the culture. I'm not copying and pasting anything it generates, but it does help me picture it. I have found that AI writing isn't that great. The prose are a little purple and the descriptions are over the top. But it does a good job at setting a tone. So as writers I think we should absolutely use it as a tool for fine tuning. But not plot building or constructing full paragraphs or even sentences. But use it for sure.
VERY well said. I think this describes a great balance. I love your example of using it to describe a place you can't go visit yourself. It's helping immerse you in your setting so that when you put pen to paper, you have a better idea of what to say. (Can't wait dig into book 4!!!)
I wrote a story when I was younger, and it took me maybe a year or two to write. However, it was tiny. Now, with AI, I can get that same story written in literal minutes to a few hours while making it many times bigger. If I really want to put work in, I could work on it for a month just to hummer out any "bugs."
I know I will not read an AI generated book. It has no soul and that can be felt looking at a piece of art or reading a book. Even if it does sound well written you are absolute correct it still feels hollow (which it is). The whole point of creativity in all of its beautiful forms is that those ideas, those marks on the paper, the music that is created and played, or that beautiful choreographed dance all comes from some ethereal magical place that our souls resonate with and needs.
That's an interesting one! I had never thought about that, nor have I tried it, so I can't really say.... but I feel like I would just use a straightforward translating tool/service, instead.
It's a cliche that many people don't want to be a writer, they want to have written a book. I think that's one place where the AI-generated books will come in. It's like they're looking for an accessory for their ego, or a badge for their sash. Another group I think we'll see publishing AI books are people who believe they have great imaginations and have a great story to tell, but they can't get it done. In other words, a lot of epic fantasy and scifi. I see writers on places like Reddit and other forums who see the structure, the grammar, the actual writing, to be impediments they only grudgingly -- and maybe only in public -- see as legitimate. Left alone with the pseudonyms on Amazon, they'll use AI and hand-wave the ethical problems. They'll see it as only needing a little help with structure, or some other "literary" thing nobody should have to know about or adhere to. They'll see their contribution as essential, and AI as something like a spellchecker, or a program that fills in a few holes their incredible story. I believe this partly because I used to ghost write for executives. They'd give me a two-minute run-down of what they wanted, and maybe -- if I was lucky -- what we called an azimuth check (are we going in the right direction) and then feel ownership of the product. But that was a work for hire done for the good of the organization. Writing a book is a personal achievement, or it's nothing.
Very well said. I had a screenwriting teacher in college who said he hated writing but loved having written. I remember thinking.... "What the heck are you even doing here?" I was almost bothered by it. But then again, I love every part of the process. Very interesting what you explained about writers on Reddit, etc. I can imagine that being the case, where they'll find excuses to make their approach acceptable. It just makes me feel icky. I feel like a lot of writers are protective of the craft, myself included. So, this approach to using AI feels almost obtrusive. I wonder if they don't realize how hard writing a book is, and how long it takes, so they don't fully realize how dismissive they're being of the whole process.
I think we're going to find there's a lot more "grey area" in the coming years... or at least it will be argued as such. Telling ChatGPT "write me a book" is obviously pretty cut and dry. There are several more sophisticated AI writing softwares (Sudowrite, for example), that allow you to hold the hand of the AI and provide a lot more guidance to it. The amount of effort you put into guiding it dictates what you get back... I think you're going to get some authors arguing that because they meticulously held the hand of the AI, and it couldn't have created what it did without them, they'll take more ownership over the "work." I've seen this argument when it comes to AI-generated artwork... But it does get greyer... okay, so using ChatGPT to look up a word is fine, right? What about using it to punch up some of your figurative language a few times in your novel? Surely if I wrote 100,000 words, you wouldn't give the AI credit for enhancing 10 of them would you? You don't credit Webster or the Thesaurus... what about 100 words? 1000? Where's the line? Will we all agree on some percentage of words? What if I put 100,000 of my own words into ChatGPT with my own ideas, my own story-structure, my own everything... and then said, "make the voice sound consistent, like it was written at a 10th grade reading level." I think at that point it's hard to deny AI deserves at least Co-author credit... but will everyone see it that way? Some might feel they did the vast majority of the work and AI simply "polished it" the way an editor would... even if it changed and re-arranged almost every word. I think there's a lot of hypotheticals one could posit between these extremes. It's a tool. A versatile tool, that some people might "lean on" more than others... and since a certain amount of shame is associated with using it, I bet we're going to have more and more authors using it, but not fessing up to it.
I've been thinking about your comment and started responding multiple times, and then deleting, because (like you described) it's SO complex and I wasn't even sure where to begin! But I agree with you. Where do we draw the line? What are the boundaries? It's kind of spectrum. There are so many possibilities, which can be a good thing, but that can also make it difficult the define the "rules." I might do a follow-up video on this because I'm having a hard time articulating myself here. :p But thank you for such an insightful comment. Let me noodle on this more.
@@bymegangrant Thanks! My response comes from personal experience. It's something I grapple with every time I turn to ChatGPT. How much have I been using it? When do the words stop being my own and when does it go from being a tool I made use of to "my book was written with AI." I want to stay FAAAAAR away from the latter for many reasons (several of which you laid out in your video). The stigma is one of them, but even without the shame of the author/reader communities, I write because I want to tell my story, in my voice. What's the point of doing anything creative if you're not using your own skills and personally doing the creating? Any writing I've seen by AI has felt... hollow. Without the personal touch of the author, I just genuinely can't bring myself to care. I don't think I'm unique in that. I guarantee there will be some readers out there who don't care about the difference and will gobble up endless slop written by AI, but those aren't the readers I'm interested in speaking to. (That said, the "hollowness" I speak of may become less apparent in time as AI gets more sophisticated... if I wasn't TOLD I'm reading AI, am I eventually not going to be able to tell?...) I digress. Point is, I ask myself where the line is every day. It would be foolish to just 100% refuse to make use of a powerful tool that will make my life easier, my writing better and my turnout more efficient, especially if every author around me is getting on board. I specifically recall reading about authors who resisted word processors because the ability to backspace made writers less careful about choosing their words. Some photographers still resist digital photography because the finite nature of a roll of film makes them more careful about how they choose their shots....but righteous or not, the general public doesn't care about the purity of the craft. Most will not recognize the difference. Gah, I'm rambling. Sorry, haha. I have a lot to say on the matter because of the internal conflict.... yknow, more and more I think the Amish have all this figured out...
The Supreme Court has ruled it is NOT under copyright. So if you're like Tor and a book cover you used is ai, anyone else can use it too. Same thing for anything inside the book.
@@bymegangrant Well, I was being a bit facetious. But it does raise larger questions about our relationship to digital technology. I use spellcheck, but I still proof what I write. I engage in the physical act of using my eyes and brain to interact with the ideas as they are written. I have a relationship with the writer, myself or someone else. Whether it is an elegant fictional narrative or scientific dissertation, the writer communicates something of their experience and interpretation of the world. That connection is a small part of the human experience. (That's why I read with gratitude.) Artificial intelligence does not have this capability. It is a gathering of what other humans have done, processing that information through an algorithm, and regurgitating data in narrative form. The human experience is diluted. As you said, AI is a tool. I respect what AI has done in certain fields (pharmaceuticals, for example), but writing and story creation in particular, is an art and a craft. By definition, art expresses what it means to be human. AI has no place in that. I don't maintain a strict, purist interpretation. But what I fear is atrophy. That with time we lose something of ourselves with the convenience of a technology that does our thinking for us or gives us a comfortable illusion of it. I don't want to lose my sense of empathy with the writer. Art is how we rise above suffering, and our connection with other humans is how we know it works. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what AI represents or the threat it may or may not pose, but I know what I want when I read. I want to be reminded that I am human.
many well-known authors only write outlines and then get someone else to do the boring "actually write the paragraphs" bit. so meh, go ahead. As long as you proof-read it before selling it to me.
I've been questioning how legit it is for the cover. Commercial licenses can be very expenses. Then, many designers use AI anyway. So, I wonder: is it that bad if authors use it directly? Especially if they already have a very specific idea?
@@bymegangrant if you like... I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. (In another video you said your husband made your cover, right?) More than the design itself, I'm talking about a complex illustration.
these glorified chatbot's being called a.i.'s are excellent for helping you to write your story/book, they are great for brainstorming character's, plot's, subplot's, character arc's, setting's, helping coming up with scene's, etc. they are great at being assistant's, even helping you to work up dialog based on the different character's voices when you get stuck in creating an important conversation and not sure how to get it to go in the direction you want it to, then brain storm the scene with the chat bot, they can give you idea's but it's up to you to refine them. you're having problems with plot hole's, as you found out, let the a.i. look it over, then ask it to give you 10 ideas on how to fix or strengthen it/them. one thing and it's huge, they are not good being creative, they just can not do it. that's where the human factor come's into play. we bring the creative vision, the direction and "juice" to this collaboration. actually asking the a.i. to write you a book? we are at least 5 - 10 years out on that. part of the problem, again, the a.i lacks any creativity other than what you give it. bottom line, a.i. is just a tool like any other tool, it's multiple assistant's all rolled into one.
No, it's not ethical, unless its 1984 again, but at least they were real people rewriting and writing books, not conputer programs. See what I did there?
Of course it is, do you care if the chair you sit in was welded by a robot? Although, when I've used AI to write for me, if I don't give it enough of my creativity the story is generic as hell.
@@bymegangrant I did. And BTW, you are much more reasonable sounding than most others I have heard talk about this, so the term probaby does not apply to you. So there is that.
Thank you for watching "Using AI to write a book - is it ethical? My thoughts..." I'd love to know your thoughts. xo
It's not ethical because of the way they trained it. Full stop.
Now, my two cents. The real question here, I think, is this: *what* is writing? It's not just a story. And it's only how that story you had in mind comes out on the page, and there's a whole bunch of "things" that happen in the process - those things already dismiss what an AI can produce. It is *where* the story came from. Fiction is human beings talking about human beings, even if it's disguised in the most subtle ways. What life experience does an AI have?
Exactly! If you don't enjoy it don't write... I would add something to this though... I wouldn't feed my book to chat gpt though... If you do use it, use an app that uses the API (application programming interface). They have it in their terms of service that they train the AI on chat conversations, by default unless you opt out, but not from the API side. It's the same AI, but you have to specifically opt in to allow them the train it on your API calls.
Oh I don't think I'm familiar with this! I'll have to learn more about it - thank you for the suggestion.
I’ve used chat gpt to give me random words from the dictionary but that’s about it. Great video! 😊
Thank you!! Yeah I feel like I've used it before as kind of a thesaurus. It's useful for many things, but I don't think writing a book is one of them. :p
All my books were written with AI, and I think it's a good thing. AI saved me lots of time and money in editing, and helped me correct so many mistakes I had... 😅
Wait I'm confused. AI wrote the book, so AI made those mistakes. And then AI corrected the mistakes? (I'm trying to understand!
@@bymegangrant no, I'm sorry for not being clear!
I wrote the first drafts myself, and then used AI for several editing phases. 🙏
@@agucci AH that is WAY different!!!
I agree with it's a compliment. It's a tool to assist, not replace. I've utilized Copilot to help research information, and learn about tools for writing. Ultimately, it's my ideas and hopefully I gst to the actual writing part beyond getting the ideas and snippets down and organizing them lol. Ai may or may not help thst aspect, or as you say, double check me. I actually asked it how to document and reference the usage in the beginning too lol. It has sparked ideas for names and titles, from prompts I write of course. So much like a patent disclosure, there's a level where someone is included as an inventor vs not. I'll be including some form of acknowledgement to copilot due to the massive amount of sources for information it spits out to me. I'm still doing the writing and idwa generation. It may help spark additional ideas.
Well said, if it’s not my complete creation my name isn’t going on it period.
Agreed! That's something to take pride in -- your OWN words.
Totally agree with you. I want to be a writer. I am a writer. I think AI has its uses, but not in writing fiction.
Agreed. It can be an INCREDIBLE tool, but not for a whole damn novel.
Absolutely
It's astounding how this has all blown up so quickly
It really is. Astounding and scary and amazing all at the same time.
As a hiring manager, I am paying for someone's personality and style. So, it would be unethical for them to use AI and turn it in to me. Not to mention that I've already told them that I would fire them if I find out anything they submitted was AI-generated.
As an author, I'll never use generative AI to write a single line of text. Mostly because I am on the side of learning how to write better and growing as an author. I would rather put my own soul into a project.
I use Autocrit to find redundant and repeat words...because I have issues. lol
My friend introduced me to Autocrit and I think it's SO cool! I learned I describe everything as "small" or "heavy." lol
And yeah, I 100% hear you on AI. And I think people like us -- who've been writing for a long time and love it -- the "temptation" isn't even there. I was never like, "Oh man! AI is going to take such a load off my shoulders!" I WANT to do the work.
@@bymegangrant Right? I suppose the benefit of being writers for over a decade just makes it second nature to us. The only thing that impresses me about AI is being able to calculate what videos perform the best on my channel and toss out ideas that might work. Other than that, I'm happiest at my keyboard. :)
Worse if a company buy your work they can't copyright it.
Happend with the 1st primate selfie. - If the author isn't human, there is no copyright. That means company A can buy it and company B can or ANYONE else can use it as well. This isn't speculation.
It's already gone through the courts, even the Supreme Court.
Might vary by country but it's new tech, and there is already precedent: caveat emptor
@@lurkhive3352 How does the copyright office rightly know, without relying on the honor system? This could ultimately make it impossible to copyright anything.
Let me play the devil’s advocate here…I have read about an algorithm program that read all the music created by a certain composer, then it was instructed to create original music in the same style of the composer. Afterwards, the music was played at a live concert for an audience without revealing who (what) wrote the music. At first, those who heard the music simply raved about it, but once they were told it was written by a computer, they then claimed it didn’t sound human at all.
So, what’s going on here? Remember, those who heard this music before being told it was written by a computer thought it was incredibly unique and very moving, but once they found out it was actually written by a computer, they claimed that it sounded mechanical! Could human bias be involved in people’s perceptions of what constitutes art?
Just for the record, I very much believe that human creativity is one of the things that makes us uniquely human, but this anecdote certainly does raise some really interesting and even important questions about art and human creativity.
That IS very interesting! I believe human bias plays a role in literally everything, so yes, I'd say it's probably involved here.
I'm trying to think of something comparable that I can relate to...I've seen video that I didn't immediately know was AI-generated. It just seemed normal. It wasn't bad, and it also didn't blow me away. When I learned it was AI, I was mostly surprised. Did it change my perception of the quality? I'm not sure... but if given the option, I would take something created by a human any day!
Very cool story, though. I need to think about this more.
There is an old saying, if you're not cheating, you're not trying. I think if you're not using it, you're not trying. But it's how you use it. I agree to Say hey AI give me a story about a talented writer from Vegas who saves dogs and you take what it generates as your own, that's completely unethical. But if the story is yours and you find yourself needing a different word for thrust , that's fine. One thing I like to do with AI is ask it to take me to a place. For example my story goes to Spain in the fourth book. I can't pick up and go to Spain. So I'll use it to say describe this city in Spain and tell me about the culture. I'm not copying and pasting anything it generates, but it does help me picture it. I have found that AI writing isn't that great. The prose are a little purple and the descriptions are over the top. But it does a good job at setting a tone. So as writers I think we should absolutely use it as a tool for fine tuning. But not plot building or constructing full paragraphs or even sentences. But use it for sure.
VERY well said. I think this describes a great balance. I love your example of using it to describe a place you can't go visit yourself. It's helping immerse you in your setting so that when you put pen to paper, you have a better idea of what to say. (Can't wait dig into book 4!!!)
I wrote a story when I was younger, and it took me maybe a year or two to write. However, it was tiny. Now, with AI, I can get that same story written in literal minutes to a few hours while making it many times bigger. If I really want to put work in, I could work on it for a month just to hummer out any "bugs."
I know I will not read an AI generated book. It has no soul and that can be felt looking at a piece of art or reading a book. Even if it does sound well written you are absolute correct it still feels hollow (which it is). The whole point of creativity in all of its beautiful forms is that those ideas, those marks on the paper, the music that is created and played, or that beautiful choreographed dance all comes from some ethereal magical place that our souls resonate with and needs.
Oh man. This is so perfectly said. SO beautiful. I agree with you completely. This is the whole point of creating art.
Great video thank you!
I understand not using AI to write the actual book, but what about using AI to translate your book into another language?
That's an interesting one! I had never thought about that, nor have I tried it, so I can't really say.... but I feel like I would just use a straightforward translating tool/service, instead.
It's a cliche that many people don't want to be a writer, they want to have written a book. I think that's one place where the AI-generated books will come in. It's like they're looking for an accessory for their ego, or a badge for their sash. Another group I think we'll see publishing AI books are people who believe they have great imaginations and have a great story to tell, but they can't get it done. In other words, a lot of epic fantasy and scifi. I see writers on places like Reddit and other forums who see the structure, the grammar, the actual writing, to be impediments they only grudgingly -- and maybe only in public -- see as legitimate. Left alone with the pseudonyms on Amazon, they'll use AI and hand-wave the ethical problems. They'll see it as only needing a little help with structure, or some other "literary" thing nobody should have to know about or adhere to. They'll see their contribution as essential, and AI as something like a spellchecker, or a program that fills in a few holes their incredible story. I believe this partly because I used to ghost write for executives. They'd give me a two-minute run-down of what they wanted, and maybe -- if I was lucky -- what we called an azimuth check (are we going in the right direction) and then feel ownership of the product. But that was a work for hire done for the good of the organization. Writing a book is a personal achievement, or it's nothing.
Very well said. I had a screenwriting teacher in college who said he hated writing but loved having written. I remember thinking.... "What the heck are you even doing here?" I was almost bothered by it. But then again, I love every part of the process.
Very interesting what you explained about writers on Reddit, etc. I can imagine that being the case, where they'll find excuses to make their approach acceptable. It just makes me feel icky. I feel like a lot of writers are protective of the craft, myself included. So, this approach to using AI feels almost obtrusive.
I wonder if they don't realize how hard writing a book is, and how long it takes, so they don't fully realize how dismissive they're being of the whole process.
@@bymegangrant I also don't think they know what they'll get out of it by doing it the right way.
I'm replacing ai with my writing.
I love this. :)
Used other people's writing.
Plagiarism.
I think we're going to find there's a lot more "grey area" in the coming years... or at least it will be argued as such. Telling ChatGPT "write me a book" is obviously pretty cut and dry. There are several more sophisticated AI writing softwares (Sudowrite, for example), that allow you to hold the hand of the AI and provide a lot more guidance to it. The amount of effort you put into guiding it dictates what you get back... I think you're going to get some authors arguing that because they meticulously held the hand of the AI, and it couldn't have created what it did without them, they'll take more ownership over the "work." I've seen this argument when it comes to AI-generated artwork...
But it does get greyer... okay, so using ChatGPT to look up a word is fine, right? What about using it to punch up some of your figurative language a few times in your novel? Surely if I wrote 100,000 words, you wouldn't give the AI credit for enhancing 10 of them would you? You don't credit Webster or the Thesaurus... what about 100 words? 1000? Where's the line? Will we all agree on some percentage of words?
What if I put 100,000 of my own words into ChatGPT with my own ideas, my own story-structure, my own everything... and then said, "make the voice sound consistent, like it was written at a 10th grade reading level." I think at that point it's hard to deny AI deserves at least Co-author credit... but will everyone see it that way? Some might feel they did the vast majority of the work and AI simply "polished it" the way an editor would... even if it changed and re-arranged almost every word.
I think there's a lot of hypotheticals one could posit between these extremes. It's a tool. A versatile tool, that some people might "lean on" more than others... and since a certain amount of shame is associated with using it, I bet we're going to have more and more authors using it, but not fessing up to it.
I've been thinking about your comment and started responding multiple times, and then deleting, because (like you described) it's SO complex and I wasn't even sure where to begin! But I agree with you. Where do we draw the line? What are the boundaries? It's kind of spectrum. There are so many possibilities, which can be a good thing, but that can also make it difficult the define the "rules."
I might do a follow-up video on this because I'm having a hard time articulating myself here. :p But thank you for such an insightful comment. Let me noodle on this more.
@@bymegangrant Thanks! My response comes from personal experience. It's something I grapple with every time I turn to ChatGPT. How much have I been using it? When do the words stop being my own and when does it go from being a tool I made use of to "my book was written with AI." I want to stay FAAAAAR away from the latter for many reasons (several of which you laid out in your video). The stigma is one of them, but even without the shame of the author/reader communities, I write because I want to tell my story, in my voice. What's the point of doing anything creative if you're not using your own skills and personally doing the creating? Any writing I've seen by AI has felt... hollow. Without the personal touch of the author, I just genuinely can't bring myself to care. I don't think I'm unique in that. I guarantee there will be some readers out there who don't care about the difference and will gobble up endless slop written by AI, but those aren't the readers I'm interested in speaking to. (That said, the "hollowness" I speak of may become less apparent in time as AI gets more sophisticated... if I wasn't TOLD I'm reading AI, am I eventually not going to be able to tell?...)
I digress. Point is, I ask myself where the line is every day. It would be foolish to just 100% refuse to make use of a powerful tool that will make my life easier, my writing better and my turnout more efficient, especially if every author around me is getting on board. I specifically recall reading about authors who resisted word processors because the ability to backspace made writers less careful about choosing their words. Some photographers still resist digital photography because the finite nature of a roll of film makes them more careful about how they choose their shots....but righteous or not, the general public doesn't care about the purity of the craft. Most will not recognize the difference.
Gah, I'm rambling. Sorry, haha. I have a lot to say on the matter because of the internal conflict.... yknow, more and more I think the Amish have all this figured out...
The Supreme Court has ruled it is NOT under copyright. So if you're like Tor and a book cover you used is ai, anyone else can use it too. Same thing for anything inside the book.
Is there any use of AI that is ethical? 🙂
Well, it has inifinite applications, so I'd say yes! But...not writing a book. :)
I barely think spellcheck is ethical...
That's interesting! Could you explain why?
@@bymegangrant Well, I was being a bit facetious. But it does raise larger questions about our relationship to digital technology. I use spellcheck, but I still proof what I write. I engage in the physical act of using my eyes and brain to interact with the ideas as they are written. I have a relationship with the writer, myself or someone else. Whether it is an elegant fictional narrative or scientific dissertation, the writer communicates something of their experience and interpretation of the world. That connection is a small part of the human experience. (That's why I read with gratitude.) Artificial intelligence does not have this capability. It is a gathering of what other humans have done, processing that information through an algorithm, and regurgitating data in narrative form. The human experience is diluted.
As you said, AI is a tool. I respect what AI has done in certain fields (pharmaceuticals, for example), but writing and story creation in particular, is an art and a craft. By definition, art expresses what it means to be human. AI has no place in that. I don't maintain a strict, purist interpretation. But what I fear is atrophy. That with time we lose something of ourselves with the convenience of a technology that does our thinking for us or gives us a comfortable illusion of it. I don't want to lose my sense of empathy with the writer. Art is how we rise above suffering, and our connection with other humans is how we know it works. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what AI represents or the threat it may or may not pose, but I know what I want when I read. I want to be reminded that I am human.
many well-known authors only write outlines and then get someone else to do the boring "actually write the paragraphs" bit. so meh, go ahead. As long as you proof-read it before selling it to me.
I only learned a few years ago how many authors don't actually write their books. It made me a little sad.
@bymegangrant Oh I agree.
Awesome video!
Thank you!
I've been questioning how legit it is for the cover. Commercial licenses can be very expenses. Then, many designers use AI anyway. So, I wonder: is it that bad if authors use it directly? Especially if they already have a very specific idea?
I've struggled with this one, and I think there is SUCH a gray area. Maybe I should do my next video on this??
@@bymegangrant if you like... I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. (In another video you said your husband made your cover, right?) More than the design itself, I'm talking about a complex illustration.
these glorified chatbot's being called a.i.'s are excellent for helping you to write your story/book, they are great for brainstorming character's, plot's, subplot's, character arc's, setting's, helping coming up with scene's, etc. they are great at being assistant's, even helping you to work up dialog based on the different character's voices when you get stuck in creating an important conversation and not sure how to get it to go in the direction you want it to, then brain storm the scene with the chat bot, they can give you idea's but it's up to you to refine them. you're having problems with plot hole's, as you found out, let the a.i. look it over, then ask it to give you 10 ideas on how to fix or strengthen it/them.
one thing and it's huge, they are not good being creative, they just can not do it. that's where the human factor come's into play. we bring the creative vision, the direction and "juice" to this collaboration.
actually asking the a.i. to write you a book? we are at least 5 - 10 years out on that. part of the problem, again, the a.i lacks any creativity other than what you give it.
bottom line, a.i. is just a tool like any other tool, it's multiple assistant's all rolled into one.
Interesting topic 🤔 would my Ai be able to detect the Ai?
No, it's not ethical, unless its 1984 again, but at least they were real people rewriting and writing books, not conputer programs. See what I did there?
Of course it is, do you care if the chair you sit in was welded by a robot? Although, when I've used AI to write for me, if I don't give it enough of my creativity the story is generic as hell.
Just a new form of Luddite.
DId you watch the video?
@@bymegangrant I did. And BTW, you are much more reasonable sounding than most others I have heard talk about this, so the term probaby does not apply to you. So there is that.
@@ericgranberg8893 Thanks for clarifying. :-)
@@bymegangrant You seem like a wonderful person. So I decided to subscribe to your channel.
@@ericgranberg8893 I appreciate that! Thank you for supporting me. :)